Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐍 PyPI

GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj

CRITICALFix: python-hyper/h11@114803a

GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj is a critical-severity (CVSS 9.1) CWE-444 vulnerability in h11. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

h11 accepts some malformed Chunked-Encoding bodies

Also known asCVE-2025-43859PYSEC-2026-348
Published
Apr 24, 2025
Updated
Jun 29, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected
🐍h11

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

A leniency in h11's parsing of line terminators in chunked-coding message bodies can lead to request smuggling vulnerabilities under certain conditions.

Details

HTTP/1.1 Chunked-Encoding bodies are formatted as a sequence of "chunks", each of which consists of:

  • chunk length
  • \r\n
  • length bytes of content
  • \r\n

In versions of h11 up to 0.14.0, h11 instead parsed them as:

  • chunk length
  • \r\n
  • length bytes of content
  • any two bytes

i.e. it did not validate that the trailing \r\n bytes were correct, and if you put 2 bytes of garbage there it would be accepted, instead of correctly rejecting the body as malformed.

By itself this is harmless. However, suppose you have a proxy or reverse-proxy that tries to analyze HTTP requests, and your proxy has a different bug in parsing Chunked-Encoding, acting as if the format is:

  • chunk length
  • \r\n
  • length bytes of content
  • more bytes of content, as many as it takes until you find a \r\n

For example, pound had this bug -- it can happen if an implementer uses a generic "read until end of line" helper to consumes the trailing \r\n.

In this case, h11 and your proxy may both accept the same stream of bytes, but interpret them differently. For example, consider the following HTTP request(s) (assume all line breaks are \r\n):

GET /one HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

5
AAAAAXX2
45
0

GET /two HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

0

Here h11 will interpret it as two requests, one with body AAAAA45 and one with an empty body, while our hypothetical buggy proxy will interpret it as a single request, with body AAAAXX20\r\n\r\nGET /two .... And any time two HTTP processors both accept the same string of bytes but interpret them differently, you have the conditions for a "request smuggling" attack. For example, if /two is a dangerous endpoint and the job of the reverse proxy is to stop requests from getting there, then an attacker could use a bytestream like the above to circumvent this protection.

Even worse, if our buggy reverse proxy receives two requests from different users:

GET /one HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

5
AAAAAXX999
0
GET /two HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Cookie: SESSION_KEY=abcdef...

...it will consider the first request to be complete and valid, and send both on to the h11-based web server over the same socket. The server will then see the two concatenated requests, and interpret them as one request to /one whose body includes /two's session key, potentially allowing one user to steal another's credentials.

Patches

Fixed in h11 0.15.0.

Workarounds

Since exploitation requires the combination of buggy h11 with a buggy (reverse) proxy, fixing either component is sufficient to mitigate this issue.

Credits

Reported by Jeppe Bonde Weikop on 2025-01-09.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐍PyPIh11all versions0.16.0

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for h11. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Fix

    Update h11 to 0.16.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact A leniency in h11's parsing of line terminators in chunked-coding message bodies can lead to request smuggling vulnerabilities under certain conditions. ### Details HTTP/1.1 Chunked-Encoding bodies are formatted as a sequence of "chunks", each of which consists of: - chunk length - `\r\n` - `length` bytes of content - `\r\n` In versions of h11 up to 0.14.0, h11 instead parsed them as: - chunk length - `\r\n` - `length` bytes of content - any two bytes i.e. it did not validate that the trailing `\r\n` bytes were correct, and if you put 2 bytes of garbage there it would be acce
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-vqfr-h8mv-ghfj across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.